Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)

May 13, 2015 at 4:43 AM Post #5,326 of 6,500
  We don't get a lot of pro DACs through here. Maybe we should try a few. I had a Metric Halo at one point and it was quite good.
Given how poorly recorded or mastered a lot of music seems to be I do wonder about the priorities of a lot of professionals. I guess that is as varied as the priorities of enthusiasts like us.

 
Hi and thanks and actully i am doing just  that   
redface.gif
   but they are all DS ...
frown.gif

I think that some recording labels aiming at quality can be trusted but i am afraid you are right about the mass market commercial production not having sound quality as main goal.
I have heard of so much DSP on music that is really puzzling.
eek.gif

Thanks again, gino
 
May 13, 2015 at 6:33 AM Post #5,327 of 6,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoga 
 
Note: this a thought - a question to discuss - not a statement. I have a Yggy on order myself.
 
Regarding dacs that reveal incredible details (not just the Yggy), while they are often touted as being the most realistic (tonal/texture quality etc. all aside), could these dacs bring out too much detail?
 
If some dacs 'hide' too much detail, would it not be possible to 'show' too much detail?
 
Could these 'minor' sounds be brought to the forefront of the sound spectrum / sonic signature more than intended when being originally recorded and produced? Why is hearing a faint breath (that wasn't intended to be heard) more 'realistic'? Is it not simply more resolving?
 
Again, this is a discussion point, not a statement.
 
 
My 2¢
When we are splitting hairs of this nature, definitions become really important, as in what do you mean by 'detail', and can you describe it in enough 'detail' so as to be clear?  
 
Despite this 'limitation' I'd say based upon my experience, no, you can't have too much detail 
IF…
The rest of the system is able to deliver ALL of the detail inherent in the source material (DAC or vinyl)
IOW if the entire system 'gets out of its own way'…
AND
If the rest of the system has sufficient resolution and focus to match the level of detail from the source…
Which is another way of saying the entire system 'gets out of its own way', and can deliver ALL of those pesky details…
 
This is a tall order, at least as far as I have come to understand this.
 
And to me, detail means presenting all acoustic aspects, all in their 'proper' harmonic relationships and in their proper time.
After all we are dealing with SotA levels of reproduction here, and the air is might thin, way up hear… 
 
Lastly, if you can hear, recognize and identify those 'faint' audible 'cues' in the first place that means they haven't been obscured nor altered such that you CAN "hear, recognize and identify" them.
 
This isn't just a matter of resolution but also includes a degree of precision of the recreation of the original signal, over a wide dynamic range while maintaining the integrity of each original instrument, despite what ever else is happening.  And then delivering that signal, intact, to our ears.
 
This becomes more evident in complex (many instruments) passages, where it's all to easy to have the overall soundstage blend together.  The details are still there but they don't retain their individuality so being able to follow a single instrument becomes more difficult.
 
But when the original signal is delivered intact to be heard, what happens is, aspects such as details and SQ and FR and all such descriptors, become inadequate to describe what the net effect is.
They cease to be important, they just become superfluous detritus, 
while you get carried away by the music.
 
 
JJ
 
May 13, 2015 at 6:58 AM Post #5,328 of 6,500
   
I'm not sure if purrin has the TDA1543 mixed up. Maybe, maybe not. I don't believe he has them mixed up based on a small conversation I had with him a couple weeks back. I know he had some doubts about the TDA1541As datasheet at least in terms of reported INL/DNL.
 
The TDA1541A is a whole different ball game compared to the TDA1543, as I'm sure you know. Based on what little experience I have with DACs that use either chip and what research I've done, just in terms of tone and such, the 1543 is warmer, more forward and aggressive, and otherwise just generally less capable on all technical levels. But it can make for an enjoyable listen from a budget DAC. When I see a TDA1543 DAC costing over $500 or, worse, $1000, I just have to shake my head. I don't care how many chips you parallel together. It's still a TDA1543.
 
I believe TDA1541A, standard grade, is rated for worst case scenario +/- 1 LSB, per the datasheet (still trying to dig for more info and clarification on 1541 lsb error). The various "grades" of the chip have different performance tolerances, some which are rated at worst case of 0.5 to 1LSB depending on bit, I believe. That's not to say you can't find a regular 1541A chip that performs on par with the S1 or S2 grade chips, just that the S1/S2 chips are guaranteed for a higher level of performance.
 
FWIW, Pedja of Audial hand picks the chips from a very specific batch of TDA1541As, from a '98 run in Taiwan. They're not S1/S2 grade, but subjectively and measurably he says they should perform as such. I have to trust him, because, as far as I know, he's well known in the DIY world for his experience working with and knowledge on the TDA1541A, and I've seen him post comparative measurements of various graded chips. (Can't say how much he knows/doesn't know compared to anyone else, so not saying he's necessarily the bestest.)
 
From what I've read according to those that design DACs around the TDA1541A, you can get somewhere around 15-15.5 ENOB (effective number of bits) on a good design and assuming you get a good chip from a good batch. I think chips like the PCM63 or AD1862 can reach a higher ENOB, but I also believe they are rated higher than 16-bits. TDA1541A is rated at a max of 16-bits. Compare this to the rumored chips that Metrum uses, which could be anywhere from 12-14 ENOB, which wouldn't be too far off from the TDA1543 (not 1541). TotalDAC with 0.01% resistors may only be able to get 14 ENOB, maybe. I don't have enough knowledge to explain how/why the TotalDAC does so well with static measurements but is rumored to really have only 14-bit performance max. 6-moons wrote a bit about this a while back, and there are other rumors floating around. I get why it might be limited to 14 ENOB, but not sure about the static measurements. Same thing for that new soekris DIY discrete ladder DAC.
 
Would I have gone with a PCM63-based non-oversampling DAC if available? I definitely would have considered it. That or the AD1862. I just didn't see any available or appealing options that at least looked like they were well designed and came close to maxing out said chip's performance. I know MHDT labs is/was going to put out a non-oversampled, AD1862-based DAC, but A) I have no idea when it will be available, B) I don't know what it will cost, and C) based on reviews I read of other MHDT DACs, I decided the design might not be to my tastes or as good as I'd like. The Metrum Pavane might have better accuracy than the Hex or similar, but it's too pricy, and the listed THD still concerns me about its true performance.
 
Another thing I've read from DIY DAC designers is that getting the TDA1541A to reach its specified, max potential is rather difficult. And when you're going for a non-oversampled design, it becomes that much more difficult to get it to look good with objective measurements. It seems the only thing holding the Audial Model S back is variance between the left/right channel performance on the chip, which I've read is common or to be expected on the TDA1541A or TDA1543. But, as I said, the main different between the left channels is almost exclusively in the 2nd order distortion, per my (unpublished) measurements. It still looks a whole hell of a lot better in measurements than the Metrum Hex did, and sounds it too. I'm not going to split hairs if the left channel reports 0.007% THD at 0dB 1khz tone and right reports 0.002%, and only due to 2nd order differences. For the most part, looks good on paper, and sounds great to my ears.
 
Even outside of good performance on paper/datasheets, the TDA1541A has a following because a lot of people simply like its tone. It's just very natural sounding and fatigue free without being boring, slow, too colored, glossing over details, and so on. As I understand it, though, you really need a good, beefy design to really bring out its true dynamic performance. Then you have fans that prefer the PCM63 or AD1862 for different reasons, general tone and different technical qualities. They all look good on paper, so assuming you put them in a good implementation, it really comes down to personal tastes after that point.
 
ANYWAY...let me know if you want further details beyond the Model S impressions I already provided. I know I already wrote a lot, more than intended, but I will be publishing a full review in the near future. I only have the Theta Gen Va on hand to directly compare it against, though I will do what I can to compare it against the Metrum Hex, Audio-GD NOS1704, and Classe DAC-1 based on memory.
 
Never tried any mods on these DACs, though it would have been cool to try to get the Classe DAC-1 to run in non-oversample mode. I'm not an electrical engineer of any sorts, or what have you, so that's way outside my expertise. (And, of course because of this, call me out if I misunderstood or got something wrong, please.)
 
Don't get me wrong...something like the Yggy definitely will beat the Audial Model S in terms of sheer techincal proficiency and accuracy. Had I not required a non-oversampled DAC for my primary setup, I easily would have gone that route. It's such a no-brainer vs. the hunt I had to go through to find the Model S. And I'm sure I'll get a DAC with trickle down Yggy tech in the future as a secondary/complementary DAC. So, anyway, that's just a lot of unnecessary details about the TDA1541A and how I came to my decision to get the Model S, but the vast majority of people are going to be best served by something like the Yggy.

 
 
(Firstly, thanks for your comprehensive reply; I thought I'd wait until I'm a little more lucid, before attempting a response)
 
As you say, I've only heard bad things about the 1543; I think that maybe ganging a load of them together was little more than a sales ploy!
 
I'm afraid that you've passed my level of knowledge and understanding with your quoting of "lsb" levels, although I am aware of the different grading and tolerances of the 3 most popular versions of the 1541a; I think that they just got better at making them, as time went on.
 
ENOB? Ok, I'm new to that term (it seems like you've certainly done more research than I have), but I understand the meaning: the usable number of bits. As far as I understand, the bit rate mainly effects the dynamic range; more bits = more headroom for louder and quieter sections of music. So, maybe it's not quite so important for all music types.
Anyway, I do recall that the later PCM chips are 18 bit (and later maybe 20). Apparently they do measure better than the tda1541, but of course, measurements don't mean everything. And besides, the media is still only 16 bit!
 
I've also never made any comparisons between chips, just different cd players; I got hooked on the 1541a (after doing a 'sound-off' between my (then) cherished Marantz CD63KI and an Arcam Alpha) and collected a few models that were going cheap. I certainly would be interested to hear the the PCM and AD competition, for myself. But I'll take solace in the fact that many still rate the 1541 as the king.
 
I think I've heard of Pedja; the guy who sourced, and basically rebuilt, my music player seems to be a disciple of his. He was suggesting that NOS is the way to go, but I had concerns about high frequency distortion, interference and perhaps even damage to downstream components, like ribbon tweeters. So he suggested using a Cambridge Audio DAC 3, the original Stan Curtis model with 4x tda1541s1 chips. The logic being that with that dac starting at 16x OS, the bypassing of the horrible OS filter chip still leaves it at a more standard 4x OS. This is done by the configuration of the dac chips. This also allows a simpler analogue output to be used, than if it was NOS.
I don't know what 'damage' this remaining OS is doing, but my 'engineer' said that it's definitely a superior solution to the 7220 filter chip.
 
Incidentally, sorry if you've already explained, but why, with your Yggy affording budget, do you have a specific requirement for NOS?
 
Cheers.
 
May 13, 2015 at 7:46 AM Post #5,329 of 6,500
  Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoga 
 
Note: this a thought - a question to discuss - not a statement. I have a Yggy on order myself.
 
Regarding dacs that reveal incredible details (not just the Yggy), while they are often touted as being the most realistic (tonal/texture quality etc. all aside), could these dacs bring out too much detail?
 
If some dacs 'hide' too much detail, would it not be possible to 'show' too much detail?
 
Could these 'minor' sounds be brought to the forefront of the sound spectrum / sonic signature more than intended when being originally recorded and produced? Why is hearing a faint breath (that wasn't intended to be heard) more 'realistic'? Is it not simply more resolving?
 
Again, this is a discussion point, not a statement.
 
 
My 2¢
When we are splitting hairs of this nature, definitions become really important, as in what do you mean by 'detail', and can you describe it in enough 'detail' so as to be clear?  
 
Despite this 'limitation' I'd say based upon my experience, no, you can't have too much detail 
IF…
The rest of the system is able to deliver ALL of the detail inherent in the source material (DAC or vinyl)
IOW if the entire system 'gets out of its own way'…
AND
If the rest of the system has sufficient resolution and focus to match the level of detail from the source…
Which is another way of saying the entire system 'gets out of its own way', and can deliver ALL of those pesky details…
 
This is a tall order, at least as far as I have come to understand this.
 
And to me, detail means presenting all acoustic aspects, all in their 'proper' harmonic relationships and in their proper time.
After all we are dealing with SotA levels of reproduction here, and the air is might thin, way up hear… 
 
Lastly, if you can hear, recognize and identify those 'faint' audible 'cues' in the first place that means they haven't been obscured nor altered such that you CAN "hear, recognize and identify" them.
 
This isn't just a matter of resolution but also includes a degree of precision of the recreation of the original signal, over a wide dynamic range while maintaining the integrity of each original instrument, despite what ever else is happening.  And then delivering that signal, intact, to our ears.
 
This becomes more evident in complex (many instruments) passages, where it's all to easy to have the overall soundstage blend together.  The details are still there but they don't retain their individuality so being able to follow a single instrument becomes more difficult.
 
But when the original signal is delivered intact to be heard, what happens is, aspects such as details and SQ and FR and all such descriptors, become inadequate to describe what the net effect is.
They cease to be important, they just become superfluous detritus, 
while you get carried away by the music.
 
 
JJ

 
Another angle is about the way in which people prefer to 'listen through' a system that is less than perfect; some focus on the detail retrieval, and aren't too bothered by the lack of a 'full' or 'wholesome' sound, as long as those details are resolved. Whilst others prefer the 'full' or 'wholesome' sound; some (like myself) find it more realistic, and find excessive detail too distracting.
Of course, the problem is that the details are excessive, because of the failings of the system, but it provokes different reactions in different people.
 
My concern is, if I can one day afford it, where does the Yggy fit in? Most, who report on its sound, talk about how it excels at detail resolution. Does this mean that it's too detailed for some?
 
May 13, 2015 at 7:48 AM Post #5,330 of 6,500
May 13, 2015 at 8:59 AM Post #5,331 of 6,500
In the new super expensive MSB Select they use 16 Hybrid DAC’s that they says are faster and more accurate than their ladder DAC’s. It doesn’t say what kind of hybrid it is thou.  



http://www.msbtech.com/image/2015-SELECT-DAC-Poster%2033x80.pdf



Moreover Leif of Marten design says that the new Diamond DAC V has a real resolution of 26 bit.



http://www.euphonia-audioforum.se/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t11413.html (in Swedish)

At this point it's just a big DAC waving contest.
"I've got a full 26 bits of resolution, what are you packin' in that chassis?"

If the DAC doesn't do what people are talking about when they say their music sounds like nothing they've ever heard in regards to the Yggy and the 'magic' that happens, a DAC isn't doing its job. If that 26 bit thing sounds exceptional, cool, but at this point they're only expanding the girth of the DAC, not how they use it.

Oh dear, innuendo
 
May 13, 2015 at 9:15 AM Post #5,333 of 6,500
May 13, 2015 at 9:43 AM Post #5,334 of 6,500
 
In the new super expensive MSB Select they use 16 Hybrid DAC’s that they says are faster and more accurate than their ladder DAC’s. It doesn’t say what kind of hybrid it is thou.  

http://www.msbtech.com/image/2015-SELECT-DAC-Poster%2033x80.pdf

Moreover Leif of Marten design says that the new Diamond DAC V has a real resolution of 26 bit.

http://www.euphonia-audioforum.se/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t11413.html (in Swedish)

Very nice.  
 
And given that the "suggested" build doesn't include the dual power base option or the Femto 33 clock and these options only add $30K to an already reasonable $89.9K. it's "goodbye Yggy!" 
wink_face.gif

 
May 13, 2015 at 9:51 AM Post #5,335 of 6,500
At this point it's just a big DAC waving contest.
"I've got a full 26 bits of resolution, what are you packin' in that chassis?"

If the DAC doesn't do what people are talking about when they say their music sounds like nothing they've ever heard in regards to the Yggy and the 'magic' that happens, a DAC isn't doing its job. If that 26 bit thing sounds exceptional, cool, but at this point they're only expanding the girth of the DAC, not how they use it.

Oh dear, innuendo


I don’t have the MSB Select and are not planning to ever get one. The price is ridiculous! If I get it correct my DAC only has like 16 bit of real resolution and still sounds very good to me.

I cannot say if it’s really has 26 bit and if it has, what the benefit of it would be. I just leave some info on a topic that some seems to care very much about.

 
May 13, 2015 at 9:54 AM Post #5,336 of 6,500
I don’t have the MSB Select and are not planning to ever get one. The price is ridiculous! If I get it correct my DAC only has like 16 bit of real resolution and still sounds very good to me.



I cannot say if it’s really has 26 bit and if it has, what the benefit of it would be. I just leave some info on a topic that some seems to care very much about.

Maybe you can use the DAC as a multipurpose music player and NASA reentry calculator for their newest sattelites?
 
May 13, 2015 at 9:58 AM Post #5,337 of 6,500
Same analogy as MSB packs a v12 engine, but we don't know how it translate to performance on the race track.


 

According to Marten design ”MSB Technology Select DAC, den nya referensen som ingen kommer i närheten av!”

In English: MSB Technology Select DAC, the new reference that nothing else comes nearby.

 
May 13, 2015 at 10:00 AM Post #5,338 of 6,500
What media comes close to real 26 resolution?  I can't see it now or anytime in the relevant future.
 
May 13, 2015 at 11:45 AM Post #5,339 of 6,500
Same analogy as MSB packs a v12 engine, but we don't know how it translate to performance on the race track.

 



According to Marten design ”MSB Technology Select DAC, den nya referensen som ingen kommer i närheten av!”



In English: MSB Technology Select DAC, the new reference that nothing else comes nearby.


I am happy with 20bits for just $2299 vs MSB $xx,xxx
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top